Pants Verdict: Judge Stuffs The Pants Man

In an extremely cautious and detailed ruling, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff this morning said that Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson deserves not a penny of the $67 million that he once demanded in compensation for a mixup at his neighborhood dry cleaners.

But astonishingly, Bartnoff said not a word in her decision about Pearson's handling of the case, or about the size of his demand, or about the bizarre scale of his legal assault on the immigrant family who own Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE.

Perhaps the judge didn't need to: She spoke with her actions instead, awarding the Chung family the costs of the case--an unusual move in a civil case in which each side would ordinarily be expected to pay their own costs. (But awarding costs is not the same as awarding attorney's fees--the big financial blow in any legal matter--and Judge Bartnoff said she would make that decision at a later date.) The Chungs were laid low by Pearson's two-year pursuit of the case; their legal fees wiped out their savings and forced them to consider moving back to their native land of South Korea. In addition, as the Chungs' lawyer, Christopher Manning, pointed out this morning, the Chungs still face the potentially enormous and almost certain costs of defending themselves against an almost-inevitable appeal of Bartnoff's decision by Pearson.

"The plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alterations," Bartnoff wrote in a 23-page decision handed down 10 days after the trial's conclusion.

Bartnoff agreed with Pearson that the pants the Chung family, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Northeast Washington, say they have been holding for him since 2005 do not appear to match the jacket of Pearson's burgundy and blue-pinstriped Hickey Freeman suit. But despite the fact that Bartnoff pronounced herself willing to "accept that Mr. Pearson does not like cuffs on his pants" and that the pants the Chungs are holding indeed sport cuffs, the judge decided that there is "strong evidence" that Pearson simply brought a different pair of pants to the cleaners than he thought he had.

"The Court found Soo Chung to be very credible," Bartnoff wrote, and saw no reason to doubt her recollection--bolstered by the match in the ticket numbers found on the pants and on Pearson's receipt--that these were indeed the pants that Pearson had dropped off for a $10.50 alteration.

More important, the judge found that there is "nothing in the law" to support the foundation of Pearson's case, the notion that a sign saying "Satisfaction Guaranteed" is an absolute, unconditional guarantee that the merchant will do anything and everything a customer demands to create satisfaction. To the contrary, Bartnoff said, the law is clear that any claim of an unfair trade practice is limited to what a reasonable person would expect.

Bartnoff was clearly impressed by the Chungs' decision back in 2002, when Pearson had his first run-in with the cleaners, to pay the unhappy and litigious fellow $150 to go away after another pair of his pants went missing. The Chungs in that case gave Pearson the money he demanded even though he never produced a receipt showing that he had spent the money on a replacement garment.

Bartnoff clearly had little patience for Pearson's theory of the case.

"No one other than Mr. Pearson ever has complained about the 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign or suggested that it is misleading in any way," Bartnoff wrote of Soo Chung's testimony.

The judge dismissed the bulk of Pearson's case in a single sentence, noting that all of the witnesses he brought to the two-day trial who claimed they had had problems with Custom Cleaners amounted to squat: "It may be that those situations could have been handled better by the defendants, but the Court does not find that they in any way establish that the defendants had no intention of attempting to satisfy their customers."

Bartnoff dismissed Pearson's most compelling witness summarily. "It appears that she misread the situation," the judge concluded about an octogenarian, wheelchair-bound woman who testified that the Chungs had literally chased her from their shop.

Meanwhile, a tort reform group is hosting a fundraiser on July 24 to help the Chungs defray their legal expenses. Information at www.chungfundraiser.com.

Shame the judge didnt send her fellow DC bar member to GITMO where he bleongs with the other terrorists.

Posted by: vaherder | June 25, 2007 10:59 AM

Can the Post post a copy of the decision?

Posted by: And Justice for All | June 25, 2007 10:59 AM

Yes I would love to read the decision in full. If not posted here, then a link to the decision if you have knowledge of it.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 11:07 AM

Justice for the Chungs!

Our system may not be perfect, but it's the best one we've come up with.

Here's another call for Judge Bartoff awarding attorney's fees to the Chungs; and for the District to realize Judge Pearson's judgement in bringing and pursuing this case renders him unfit for reupping his appointment as an Administrative Law Judge.

Posted by: 20th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., NW | June 25, 2007 11:11 AM

Hooray for common sense, the Chungs and to Judge Bartoff.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2007 11:12 AM

Honestly, there has to be a way to prevent litigious (and possibly unhinged) predators like Pearson, and mercenary law firms like those who create phony class action suits, from engaging in this kind of legal extortion. How can it be good for the legal system--and the rule of law--when the legal process itself becomes a tool for blackmail?

Having the ability to use the law in order to gain redress for a wrong committed against you, either willfully or through neglect, is important. People who haven't done anything wrong should have nothing to fear from the law. But when the process itself becomes a weapon, and you can lose everything you have regardless of how ridiculous the plaintiff's case, regardless of whether or not you did anything wrong, then we have a serious problem.

People have learned to fear the courts, and have become cynical of the rule of law. If the court finds in your favor, but you are ruined anyway, and the plaintiff with the idiotic claim loses nothing by trying, how is that justice? How can you respect a legal system where the process counts more de facto than the outcome?

Posted by: Claudius | June 25, 2007 11:13 AM

Judge Pearson should be forced to resign his judgeship. His lack of judgment, compassion, commonsense, legal knowledge, and bias make him unfit to render a decision on any case for any person on any issue.

Posted by: Commonsense | June 25, 2007 11:16 AM

"the judge decided that there is "strong evidence" that Pearson simply brought a different pair of pants to the cleaners than he thought he had."

OK, does anyone recall lazy Marc -- who was reporting on the case -- recounting this strong evidence? It would have been much more useful than his endless bloviating.

Posted by: RL | June 25, 2007 11:18 AM

The fact that Pearson can continue to waste the taxpayers' (and the Chungs') money with an appeal is sick-making. The man should be involuntarily committed.

Posted by: Pelagius | June 25, 2007 11:18 AM

The scary thing is figuring out how he even got hired in the first place.

Posted by: DT | June 25, 2007 11:19 AM

Docket entry on Pearson Case dated 6/25/07:

Order Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law Entered on Docket-The Court's analysis of the plaintiff's CPPA claims applies as well to his claims of common law fraud in Count Two of the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff acknowledges that he is required to prove those claims by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. He has not proven those claims by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone by that higher standard. Judgment therefore will be awarded to the defendants, as well as their costs. A separate judgment is being entered, together with these findings. The issue of the defendants' claim for attorney's fees against the plaintiff will be addressed after the defendant's motions for sanctions and for attorney's fees have been filed and briefed by the parties. Order signed, docketed and efiled June 25, 2007.

Lawyers. (and aren't all Judges lawyers?)...you just gotta love them!!
And we wonder why there is no respect for authority and the law.

I'm sure somewhere, someone will actually try and argue that this was somehow a valid and justified action, and not a complete waste of time and money..... Probably a lawyer.

Posted by: Sean | June 25, 2007 11:46 AM

chungfundraiser.com doesn't seem to work. But I think everyone should contribute a tiny bit.

I certainly hope Bartnoff exercises her right and has Pearson pay for their legal fees...

Posted by: Tom | June 25, 2007 11:46 AM

HELP WANTED:
Position available for a well educated person, especially in law (might come in handy for next sue happy idiot) to do menial labor at my drycleaner facility.

Posted by: Wahn Hunglow | June 25, 2007 11:50 AM

This is an intellegence comments:

Honestly, there has to be a way to prevent litigious (and possibly unhinged) predators like Pearson, and mercenary law firms like those who create phony class action suits, from engaging in this kind of legal extortion. How can it be good for the legal system--and the rule of law--when the legal process itself becomes a tool for blackmail?

Having the ability to use the law in order to gain redress for a wrong committed against you, either willfully or through neglect, is important. People who haven't done anything wrong should have nothing to fear from the law. But when the process itself becomes a weapon, and you can lose everything you have regardless of how ridiculous the plaintiff's case, regardless of whether or not you did anything wrong, then we have a serious problem.

People have learned to fear the courts, and have become cynical of the rule of law. If the court finds in your favor, but you are ruined anyway, and the plaintiff with the idiotic claim loses nothing by trying, how is that justice? How can you respect a legal system where the process counts more de facto than the outcome?

Posted by: good | June 25, 2007 11:54 AM

This is an intellegent comment:

Honestly, there has to be a way to prevent litigious (and possibly unhinged) predators like Pearson, and mercenary law firms like those who create phony class action suits, from engaging in this kind of legal extortion. How can it be good for the legal system--and the rule of law--when the legal process itself becomes a tool for blackmail?

Having the ability to use the law in order to gain redress for a wrong committed against you, either willfully or through neglect, is important. People who haven't done anything wrong should have nothing to fear from the law. But when the process itself becomes a weapon, and you can lose everything you have regardless of how ridiculous the plaintiff's case, regardless of whether or not you did anything wrong, then we have a serious problem.

People have learned to fear the courts, and have become cynical of the rule of law. If the court finds in your favor, but you are ruined anyway, and the plaintiff with the idiotic claim loses nothing by trying, how is that justice? How can you respect a legal system where the process counts more de facto than the outcome?

Posted by: good | June 25, 2007 11:54 AM

Unfortunately, the law is a tool that can be used to evil purpose as well as good. This lawsuit was at the extreme end of civil conduct. The prosecution of the Duke lacrosse team was an example of prosecutorial misconduct. Fortunately, we have excellent judges around such as Judge Judith. 3 cheers for her!

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 25, 2007 11:56 AM

"She spoke with her actions instead, awarding the Chung family the costs of the case--an unusual move in a civil case in which each side would ordinarily be expected to pay their own costs."

Dead wrong. Winner gets costs unless the court expressly rules otherwise, or unless the government is the losing party.

Posted by: mark | June 25, 2007 12:03 PM

It began with pants.
"Satisfaction Guaranteed"
Be not Judge Mental.

Posted by: Pants Haiku | June 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Don't be hatin'. Just another brotha trying get rich the only way he can....suing other people. Either that or selling crack.

Has anyone besides me not picked on the racial overtones of this case?

Posted by: Chris | June 25, 2007 12:16 PM

I think the guy has every reason to sue. Maybe not sue for $54 million, but sue nevertheless. At the least, he should have changed dry cleaners, but people would still patronize this business and have to settle for mistreatment and poor service, much like black women have to suffer at the hands of unhinged hairdressers who wash your hair within 15 minutes of walking in the shop and then make you wait 5.5 hours to finish styling your hair, even though you made an appointment in advance. And yes, they have a satisfaction guranteed sign......

In this day and age, I can't get the gas station attendent to come out and fill up my gas tank. I was nine months pregnant and on bedrest and was on my way to a doctor's appointment (yes, I wasn't supposed to drive, but my husband couldn't take off from work.) They apparently will fill the gas tank for handicapped people (sign clearly posted), just not pregnant women. Satisfaction guranteed sign was in plain view as well......

I think that when someone makes a promise, they should follow through. There are too many people today who disregard common courtesy and try to get around the rules. We need to return to being a civil society instead of a "me" society. And if a dry cleaner promises to make everyone happy to keep my business, then I think they should follow through.

Posted by: tlawrenceva | June 25, 2007 12:19 PM

Re: Chris on Racial Overtones

Dude, when you see those comments, just remember that, yes, small minds also have access to the internet and can post their small-minded comments.

It's a sad travesty of our times, but, heck, those small minded people are EXACTLY what our businesses like. They can sell to small minds easier.

It's just a fact of life.

Posted by: Dude, Where's My Pants? | June 25, 2007 12:20 PM

RE: tlawrenceva - If you do not like the service, go somewhere else. If it is a specific individual that is giving you bad service, complain to the manager. If too many people stop shopping at a particular place, then they will go out of business.

Also, if you want someone to fill up your gas tank, go to the pump labeled "Full Service."

Posted by: BT | June 25, 2007 12:29 PM

I'm surprised the guy didn't take "Satisfaction Guranteed" as a sexual invitation. He sounds nutty enough.
I also think this guy Pearson has some serious racial issues and shouldn't be a judge.

Posted by: POS | June 25, 2007 12:30 PM

I don't understand why they had to dip into their savings. If they had insurance (and they would have been foolish not to), would that not have covered at least a big chunk of their legal bills?

Posted by: Anon | June 25, 2007 12:32 PM

The Korean/African American scism has replaced the Jewish/African American animosity. Blacks who are too lazy to work as hard as the merchants who serve them have always found a reason to find fault with the merchants. It's jealousy, plain and simple.

Posted by: Lawyer | June 25, 2007 12:33 PM

there is a God and He does care about right and wrong.uh-oh. sounds a lot like justice. guess we all could use a little help. Jesus.

Posted by: blpearsonjr | June 25, 2007 12:34 PM

tlawrenceva, if black women like you suffer for doing business in white or Asian establishments, then go to black establishments and leave the rest of us alone.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 12:39 PM

Another thing tlawrenceva, get off welfare and get a job.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 12:40 PM

this just shows how beyond "greedy" americans are..makes me want to be sick

Posted by: mike | June 25, 2007 12:45 PM

I am glad that this case was adjudicated this way. It would seem to me that the plaintiff should ( morally) be responsible for the legal costs of this foolhardy suit. Maybe his supervisors will "take a look" at how he represents the spirit of the law!!

Posted by: Lee Fickinger | June 25, 2007 12:45 PM

Score a victory for "Common Sense"

Posted by: Stephen | June 25, 2007 12:46 PM

A good, commonsense decision.
If forced to pay their legal fees, perhaps Mr. Pearson will think twice about an appeal.

Posted by: A reader | June 25, 2007 12:47 PM

A good, commonsense decision.
If forced to pay their legal fees, perhaps Mr. Pearson will think twice about an appeal.

Posted by: A reader | June 25, 2007 12:47 PM

"...return to being a civil society instead of a "me" society. And if a dry cleaner promises to make everyone happy to keep my business, then I think they should follow through"

So being Civil means suing someone for $54 million dollars and making their life miserable? Also, your statement is a little hypocritical. You don't think we should be focused on a "me" society but seem to want the world to revolve around you.

Posted by: marshall | June 25, 2007 12:48 PM

Good job Judge Judy!

Posted by: CommonSense | June 25, 2007 12:51 PM

I am glad he sued, also glad he will appeal. For those who don't like it, then change the law. Until then, just get over it.

Posted by: AEB | June 25, 2007 12:52 PM

too bad not everyone is able to comment objectively and without hostility. the verbal attacks, racial or otherwise, don't serve any purpose.

i'm glad for the chungs - but disagree with our legal system that generally requires the innocent party to pay for legal fees to defend themselves in court.

Posted by: junebug | June 25, 2007 1:00 PM

This is not a racial thing. Some of the writers seem to think it is because the plaintiff (a black man)lost, although if the judge had ruled against the dry cleaner owners there would be people crying racism against Koreans. Pearson is just a sick man who was too smart for his own good.

Posted by: ryanyunryan | June 25, 2007 1:01 PM

"I am glad he sued, also glad he will appeal. For those who don't like it, then change the law. Until then, just get over it."

You make changing the law sound so easy. Why don't we stop hunger while we are at it...

Posted by: BT | June 25, 2007 1:01 PM

Can anyone blame the Koreans for hating blacks after this incident? Why do blacks have to hassle everyone? Why can't they work hard like everyone else?

Posted by: Joe | June 25, 2007 1:03 PM

Pearson (a.k.a., the Cretin) is a disgrace and embarrassment to the courts, this culture, and this country...not to mention the human race. But you knew that already. ...simply subhuman.

I'm just hoping that the Chungs' faith in the American Dream and their trust in American society can be restored....at least to a degree. So sad to see this happen to them...

She should have ordered that Pearson undergo a psychiatric evaluation!

Posted by: rdubbs | June 25, 2007 1:11 PM

Any satisfaction that justice has been done in this case (don't get me wrong, it has--the only thing that would have been more just would have been for that cretin Pearson to pay the Chungs' attorneys' fees) is canceled out by the equally cretinous racists who are jumping in with their sad little blanket statements. A pox on both their houses.

Posted by: csdiego | June 25, 2007 1:16 PM

Re:tlawrenceva

Just wanted to note that he refused to accept settlement three times, the highest offer being $12,000 (from earlier Post article on the verdict). It certainly would have been more reasonable of him to accept one of these :)

Re:Phoenix Guy

Way to promote the escalation of tension and discomfort (needless!) between different groups of people. You suck.

Posted by: JMD | June 25, 2007 1:17 PM

this is in response to "JOE." you are way off the truth! as a korean-american myself, i can say that koreans do not hate african-americans. like many koreans, i have a number of FABULOUS african-american friends and comments like yours make me cringe!

Posted by: junebug | June 25, 2007 1:21 PM

"I think the guy has every reason to sue. Maybe not sue for $54 million, but sue nevertheless. At the least, he should have changed dry cleaners, but people would still patronize this business and have to settle for mistreatment..."

Boy, I am shocked when a (temporarily) lost pair of pants is seen as "mistreatment." Is a hangnail to you a major injury? People can choose not to patronize a business and contact the Better Business Bureau to register complaints. It works. I've done it.

DON'T wait 5 hours at a hairdresser - wtf is that? Leave, write a letter to the manager, call the BBB and find a new place.

If you were not supposed to drive then you shouldn't have driven...don't blame the gas station for your husband's inability to get off work. Or your inability to call a cab.

Posted by: Eye rolling | June 25, 2007 1:28 PM

tlawrenceva, can't you wash your own hair? 5.5 hours is what you get for being lazy.

Posted by: brunette | June 25, 2007 1:36 PM

I wonder if it's legal to refuse service to lawyers. If so, it could have saved this dry cleaners a lot of hassle in the first place.

Posted by: Finrod Felagund | June 25, 2007 1:36 PM

For a brother, Pearson comes across as a real wussyboy. Crying in court because the mean Korean woman wouldn't give him his precious pants. LOL

He's probably getting some action on the downlow if you know what I mean and I think you do.

Posted by: South Loudounian | June 25, 2007 1:38 PM

CNN interviewed a civil lawyer and a judge and they both said Pearson needs to be committed.

Posted by: Crazy | June 25, 2007 1:42 PM

Only in the USA.

Posted by: BURKE | June 25, 2007 1:48 PM

Be careful on donating. I would not put it past Pearson to set up a phony website to make some money, in the guise of a donation site for the Defendants.

Sad thing is, even if the defendants win an attorneys' fee award, isn't Pearson broke? He will simply file bankruptcy.

And even though administrative law judges are not real judges, this incompetent, blood sucking fraudster should be imprisoned, at the minimum. If he does not get disbarred such would be a sad statement for our justice system.

If I had an adverse decision on a case in front of Pearson, I would seriously consider appealing it based on this case establishing that Pearson in pretty stupid. How can a con artist render a fair decision on the bench?

And way to go Pearson, giving African Americans a bad name. What's next, moving to Florida so you can exchange war stories with OJ?

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 1:49 PM

TLAWRENCEVA. How dumb are you to stay at a salon for five hours waiting for you to get your hair done? Did you even have an appointment?

You have two legs. You're not in a wheelchair. You able enough to get in a car and drive, so you should be able to get out of the car and walk 6 steps to the pump. Stop comparing yourself to a handicapped person. Pay the extra 20 cents a gallon for full service and stop complaining and being so ignorant.

Posted by: DT | June 25, 2007 1:51 PM

Sad thing is, Pearson will appeal and this whole fiasco will resurface.

Posted by: 33 cent bullett | June 25, 2007 1:52 PM

tlawrenceva, this world is in trouble because ignorant, lazy people like you breed. Were you too good to take a taxi to the doctor? Don't whine about having to pump your own gas. Too lazy to wash your own hair. You want someone else to do it for you, yet you the audacity to complain if everything doesn't go your way while you're being pampered.

Posted by: unbelieveable | June 25, 2007 1:58 PM

In regards to TLAWRENCEVA, I thought she was joking. Was she serious about waiting at a salon for five hours? If so, she is just as stupid as Pearson. But I think this person is just kidding.

Poster was probably a member of the KKK posting nonsense so to rally up the troops, so to speak. No one could be so lazy and stupid to wait at a salon for five hours, much less post a complaint about it on a national blog.

Bet Pearson wishes she could be on a jury "of his peers." Outcome would have been different, for sure.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 2:03 PM

This was a case of one (ONE) nut-job trying to play the system. Everybody try and remember that. It was NOT an example of any ethnic group oppressing any other ethnic group. Those of you spouting off ideas to the contrary are also in need of psychiatric help.

One note that should be passed on: MY wife was advised to avoid the beauty salon during her pregnancies due to the chemicals in use. Some of the fumes are more toxic to a fetus than second-hand cigarette smoke.

And, just who are you trying to impress when you are 9 months pregnant, the nurses? Is a new hairdo supposed to make you more attractive at 9 months pregnant?

Ewwww.

Posted by: SoMD | June 25, 2007 2:12 PM

Thought: one of the major points of Pearson's argument was that Custom Cleaners was the only dry cleaner conveniently located to his home.

Thought: Judge Pearson is sure to lose his job as an administrative judge (right? right?)

Thought: Pearson can pay the bills that will (hopefully) start racking up by opening his own dry cleaning business in this neighborhood. That will open up competition for those dissatisfied by Custom Cleaners, and I have no doubt that someone who takes "Satisfaction Guaranteed" as seriously as Pearson does will have plenty of loyal customers.

Posted by: Future Employment Opportunities? | June 25, 2007 2:12 PM

As a black man I work hard. I am not lazy, indolent, on-welfare, on drugs etc. Do not typecast the actions of one black person as representing an entire race of people. People of all races do horrible things to others. Hitler, the unibomber, Osoma bin landin and others are all of different races, yet their capacity for evil deeds remains the same. Blacks are no different. We have the same potential for good or evil like everyone else.

Posted by: Black Man | June 25, 2007 2:14 PM

tlawrenceva, comparing your pregnant self to a handicapped person is an insult to the handicapped community. If it was safe for you to drive, it's safe for you to get out of your car and pump your own gas--it's not like it's a physically demanding task to stand on your own two feet for five minutes. And if you were supposed to be on bedrest, then maybe you should have been, you know, in bed, instead of demanding a station attendant wait on you. I don't even know if full-service stations exist anymore (except along the Jersey Turnpike). If your husband was going to make you drive, why wouldn't he be sensitive enough to make sure the car was filled up?

Pregnancy =/= disability. If you shouldn't be up and about, don't be. If you should, then pumping gas shouldn't harm you.

Posted by: Mona | June 25, 2007 2:19 PM

As a business, you reserve the right to deny service to anyone, as long as it isn't based on race or sex. OJ got booted out of a restaurant in Kentucky because the owner didn't like how he was conducting himself. If he got turned away because he was black, then that would be a lawsuit there. But the cleaners never did that. Pearson had a history of causing trouble there and they told him to not come back, but he begged them to not do that.

But of course you have ignorant people out there that will cry on the race issue no matter what situation it is. It's been 150+ years since slavery ended. You see more people complaining about being enslaved and being held down by the man... Six million European Jews were killed during the Holocaust, subjected to medical experiments, torture, then death.

You hear stories of survival, and the survivors have moved on with their lives to become active members within their community. You don't hear complaints about something that happened 60 years ago. 100 150 years ago. or 300 years ago.

Stop your whining.

And if you think Pearson deserves an appeal, you need to stop smoking that crack.

Posted by: DT | June 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Says here under "Post a Comment" that "personal attacks or other inappropriate comments... will be removed from the site." Please enforce that -- a number of the comments here are disgusting and abusive.

Congratulations to the Chung's -- I hope their expenses are fully compensated.

But don't donate to these sites until you can confirm that they are legitimate -- *anybody* can set up a web site and a Paypal account.

Posted by: Arlington Grass Popcorn | June 25, 2007 2:22 PM

In most civilized countries they do have a law which prevents these kinds of abuses. It is often referred to as the "English Law" and states that if you sue somebody and loose, then you pay ALL their expenses.

Unfortunately, the American Trial Lawyers Association do not like this law - it would dramatically cut into the profits made by a large number of plaintiff's lawyers - and they also have a HUGE lobby in DC. So you can be sure our politicians will never allow such a law - as long as the ALTA "buys" them off.

By the way, don't think it doesn't cost the consumers - you pay between $500 and $5,000 on the cost of a new car to cover these lawsuits!

Posted by: limey | June 25, 2007 2:24 PM

SoMD, you don't pregnant women are beautiful? You are a scuzzball.

Posted by: FredCo | June 25, 2007 2:25 PM

I wonder if it's legal to refuse service to lawyers. Posted by: Finrod Felagund

_____________________

Short answer: YES!

Long answer: Lawyers are NOT a protected class, at least not the same as blacks, women, etc.

In California a few years back there was a lawyer who sued a real estate broker for their refusing to sell a home to a lawyer. Reason: lawyers are too litigious.

I will spare discussing the irony of the Realtor being correct inasmuch as they got sued by a lawyer for them not not selling a home to a lawyer because they are too litigious.

The California Supreme Court kicked the guy out of court for the above reason, lawyers are not a protected class. One can discriminate against, or refuse to do business with, the lawyer for being a lawyer.

I know of one major medical insurance carrier who will NOT sell group insurance policies to lawyers or law firms. Reason: too litigious. :)

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 2:27 PM

limey: What you are referring to is the "loser pays" rule. It does what you say, in any lawsuit the loser pays the winning party's attorneys' fees and costs, period.

That rule has been debated for years. It's fairly complex, the reasons for and against the rule.

Personally, I like it, as long as one requirement is included. That is, if the Plaintiff loses, the defendant has to show that the Plaintiff's case was totally meritless or frivolous in order for the winning defendant to win an award of fees and costs.

This frivolous showing by defendants would address the concerns of the plaintiff's bar that a loser pays rule would deter cases with merit from being filed. [Detractors argue that even cases with merit can still be lost for whatever reason, bad jury, biased judge, change in law, whatever].

In California, other states, and even in fed courts, they have the requirement that the winning defendant must show the plaintiff's case was frivolous in order to recover fees and costs. But this has only been applied in discrimination and wage cases for now where the plaintiff has lost the case. And there is no hard, fast rule on it. It's up to the individual judge.

As to Pearson, I don't know that his case was frivolous at the time that he filed the case [which is the period of time you look at to determine frivolousness]. While the amount he was seeking was nonsense [aka bullsheet], the underlying facts probably supported the lawsuit, did the defendants violate the consumer protection act.

So I dunno about this case. It seems a poor example to say where the frivolous standard should apply. Personally, I'd like to see the defendants get a lien on this guys life, to where they can seize his wages, even if he is flipping burgers at Burger King.

And I would like to see him go the way of that Duke University prosecutor, disbarred and lost his job.

Out here in California there was a group of lawyers shaking down businesses for minor violation of California's Unfair Business Practices Act [a consumer protection law]. Those lawyers got disbarred or resigned, got sued by the State, and I think some were arrested for fraud. So going after Pearson in this manner has precedent.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 2:47 PM

While I think that most of the comments posted by tlawrenceva were completely idiotic, I do think it is important to clarify the question of pumping gas while pregnant.

Activities like that can be very taxing on a woman who is carrying around 40+ extra pounds. Additionally, the fumes can be nauseating, to say nothing of harmful to the unborn fetus.

How do I know? My wife is currently 8-1/2 months pregnant, so I know exactly what I am talking about.

With that said, everything else tlawrenceva wrote was utter stupidity.

Posted by: Thin Man | June 25, 2007 2:50 PM

re: Joe Nash

Lil Joey,

Needs a hug remember we all love you!

LV,
Mom

Posted by: HOT PANTS | June 25, 2007 2:52 PM

re: Joe Nash

Lil Joey,

Needs a hug remember we all love you!

LV,
Mom

Posted by: HOT PANTS | June 25, 2007 2:52 PM

An excerpt from ABCNews:

The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for the original $67 million Pearson sought, he could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles.

if you're need a new crazy lawsuit, how about the guy who is suing all 2,000 of his neighbors in Hillsmere, Annapolis for a strip of beachfront landhttp://www.hillsmereshores.net/

Posted by: annapolis | June 25, 2007 3:01 PM

Its not lawyers. Stupid lawsuits are brought against lawyers all the time and they cost us plenty too.

This case ought to have been tossed out in the first 60 days by a judge that found the claim overblown and sent it to small claims.

But the judiciary wants everyone to have their day in court no matter how frivolous and discourage that. Want to see something outrageous? Look at the truckloads of claims filed by prisoners who get "fee waivers" from the courts (they don't have to pay court fees) to sue sometimes dozens of times each year for idiotic claims--all solemnly processed at great expense to taxpayers. Even if you don't pay taxes the weight of judges, clerks etc to process all that nonsense is appalling.

Most judges are too timid to toss a case like this one. If they do the court of appeal send it back with a scolding: "you should have let a jury decide."

In cases involving free speech, however, many states have an accelerated process to decide if Plaintiff will prevail and toss him out early if he can't show he will.

The courts need to establish more early analysis procedures for cases like this.

Meanwhile, where is the state bar that license this man to practice law? Have they nothing to say about this suit (no pun intended) and the man that filed it? We didn't need a trial to establish that he didn't deserve 12 mill for a friggin pair of pants.

Posted by: California | June 25, 2007 3:04 PM

Quite the contrary FredCo. Pregnant women are very attractive. The glow on their faces and the constant smile in their eyes is very appealing.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. They don't need to waste time/money at a stylist, especially that close to full term.

Although I must admit to having been called a scuzzball before. Just not since marrying the most beautiful women in the world, pregnant or not.

Posted by: SoMD | June 25, 2007 3:16 PM

Yes, they should by all means award the Chungs all attorney's fees.

Maybe Judith Bartnoff should get an award for reading her decision with a straight face?

America, your attorneys will put your comedians out of work!

Posted by: William | June 25, 2007 3:26 PM

I applause judge Bartnoff for having the courage to make the right (objectively) decision. I hope the DC Judge Panel has the same courage not to renew Pearson's 2-year term. And I hope the DC Bar Association has the courage to disbar this unqualified clown.

Posted by: Tan | June 25, 2007 3:39 PM

tlawrenceva, if you see "satisfaction guaranteed" on a M&M candy wrapper, that means you can return the wrapper and get a replacement or cash refund. Which is pretty much what the Chungs did, when they paid compensation for the pants man in the past even when he had no receipt, and were willing to pay $10,000 to resolve the issue this time around, even without the trial! That sounds like much more than a refund to me, especially given that the pants man can't even prove he got back the wrong set of pants in the first place.

Or do you still believe "satisfaction guaranteed" on the M&M candy wrapper = $54 million reward?

Posted by: MustBeJoking | June 25, 2007 3:41 PM

Marc, you previously mentioned that the pants lawsuit probably will not affect Pearson's 10 year appointment as an ALJ. I read two interesting items that may factor in the decision that have nothing to do with his right to sue under the Constitution. First, Pearson testified that he received unemployment benefits after he quit his job from Legal Aid. So he either probably falsified his application to improperly received aid or he lied in court saying that he quit (vs. being fired, thus eligible for aid). Another issue is his bragging that he never paid the amounts ordered against him in his Virginia divorce. If he violated a court order, or used frivolous means to avoid paying, it may also be a highly negative factor in considering his appointment. Shouldn't the board investigate these issues before making a decision?

Posted by: D | June 25, 2007 3:42 PM

Sean, no, all judges are NOT lawyers. Many judges are elected to their offices, and need not be attorneys. You don't even have to be an attorney to be a Supreme Court justice.

Posted by: Gasmonkey | June 25, 2007 3:45 PM

On the subject of the Judge's law degree, not all Judge positions are required to hold a law degree, pass the bar, or even study law.

On the hair stylist thing, it's a situation where the stylist is running late, but to keep a customer from leaving after waiting an hour or so for their appointment, they get them shampooed and into a robe so that they're stuck and feel they can't leave the salon untill their finished with their appointment.

Posted by: JR | June 25, 2007 3:49 PM

Perhaps a costs award is unusual in D.C., I don't practice there, but it is routine in any case where one party prevails in both Colorado and New York. Attorneys' fees awards, in contrast, are rare.

Also, the judge makes multiple comments in the decision on Pearson's litigation conduct, although does not reach the merits of the attorneys' fees issue.

Posted by: ohwilleke | June 25, 2007 4:10 PM

Marc Fisher and The Pants Lawsuit are so perfect for each other that one almost wonders whether the whole thing was staged :) Fisher's red meat is often opining about the acutely ludicrous happenings on the local scene, and the tempest over this pair of pants is about as much in Fisher's wheelhouse as it can get. This whole thing was right up there with Fairfax County trying to mandate 4 star kitchens as a prerequisite to offering the homeless a hot meal last year.

Posted by: vajent | June 25, 2007 4:13 PM

The only people making this a racial issue are the racists who keep bringing it up in these postings and the fact that Marc Fisher keeps harping about the fact that the drycleaners are immigrants, as if that is relevant to anything. Mr. Pearson knew the cleaners were Korean when he first went to them. If he had a problem with Koreans, he probably would not have given them any business in the first place. Stop trying to make everything a race issue, you bigots.

Posted by: C-dog | June 25, 2007 4:41 PM

If the pants don't fit
You can't acquit!
Dammit.

Posted by: O J Simpson | June 25, 2007 4:48 PM

Once again, DC government is a joke. People at that courthouse should wear clown suits. How's that Statehood issue working out on the hill?

Posted by: smokeclearing | June 25, 2007 5:07 PM

aLL the racial comments should be removed. If this had been a white person suing I wander would the outcome been different. I think the judge would have ruled in some compensation for the plaintiffs. A bit bizzare for a judge to take up two years of taxpayers money. He should have taken the $12,000.00. What a waste of time.

Posted by: eggie | June 25, 2007 5:27 PM

aLL the racial comments should be removed. If this had been a white person suing I wander would the outcome been different. I think the judge would have ruled in some compensation for the plaintiffs. A bit bizzare for a judge to take up two years of taxpayers money. He should have taken the $12,000.00. What a waste of time.

Posted by: eggie | June 25, 2007 5:28 PM

"If this had been a white person suing I wander would the outcome been different. I think the judge would have ruled in some compensation for the plaintiffs"

How funny. You say that racial comments should be removed than you make one. Classic and emblematic.

Posted by: smokeclearing | June 25, 2007 5:38 PM

'If this had been a white person suing I wander would the outcome been different. I think the judge would have ruled in some compensation for the plaintiffs'

How funny. You say that racial comments should be removed than you make one. Classic and emblematic.

Posted by: smokeclearing | June 25, 2007 5:40 PM

Or Pearson gave his pants to the Korean cleaners because he wanted to wipe them out. It's pretty obvious that the pants that Mr. Pearson is disputing are in fact the pants he dropped off at the cleaners. BTW....I've had my clothes cleaned by half a dozen cleaners, all run by Koreans and have never had a problem with any of them. Sorry, couldn't say the same for my african american neighbors.

Posted by: Joe Nash | June 25, 2007 5:46 PM

eggie, you are a racial hypocrite. You don't like the so-called "racial comments", then you make a racial comment by saying "had this been a white person ..."

So it's OK only for uppity blacks to make racial comments?

It is a harsh fact that black people in general like to cause trouble. A couple of years ago, I had a run-in with a black former downstairs neighbor who harassed me because his ceiling squeaked every time I walked, as if it was my fault that the both of us were living in a very old and poorly structured building.

He tries to get me evicted by making up some story that I was touching myself inappropriately whenever women pass by. He gets this equally racist black leasing consultant to write me up and threaten me with eviction over intentional false accusations.

All three people, my former downstairs neighbor, the leasing consultant and Judge Roy Pearson are all three examples of what's wrong with the black race.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 5:55 PM

Unscrupulous people like Pearson only prove how the judicial system in this country, inspite of all it's safeguards, can be so easily held to ransom. The U.S. has all along encouraged frivolous lawsuits, I don't know why, but maybe solely for the pecuniary benefit of the legal community. Other than that, I don't see any economic benefits for the society accruing from these frivolous lawsuits. I don't even understand why the U.S Courts and judges take so long to pass a judgement after wasting enormous resources on such worthless cases. The whole exercise puts the entire country, its citizens and the judicial system in a very bad light. Hope the courts take a lesson from this case.

Posted by: darren2007 | June 25, 2007 6:07 PM

And you, Phoenix Guy, are a shining example of what is wrong with the white race.

You represent your race just as much as you believe a handful of black people represent their's. From your actions I would have to conclude that all white people are vicious racists.

Posted by: All whites are racist | June 25, 2007 6:20 PM

I am so glad I left DC in 1977. The city has been on a downhill slide since. Pearson's stupidity is just another example of that slide. Statehood? Never! Representation? Never! Give it back to Maryland.

Posted by: ipanema | June 25, 2007 6:25 PM

I would request to please shun all racist debates. It leads to nowhere and causes only ill-will. Please try to be good human beings above all.

Posted by: darren2007 | June 25, 2007 6:25 PM

Hey "All whites are racist", if you don't like white people, go back to Africa and stay there. The slave trade is over, you can go home now. Don't stay here and cause trouble.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 6:27 PM

Andycyber,

Don't let him race bait you.

Posted by: ipanema | June 25, 2007 6:28 PM

ipanema, I left NYC in 1992 for the same reasons you left D.C. My birth city was at the mercy of an incompetent mayor named David Dinkins who allow racist blacks to drive a Korean-owned grocery store in Brooklyn out of business. A year later, Rudy Giuliani was elected and he turned NYC around.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 6:35 PM

TO: "All whites are racist"

I don't have a vicious bone in me. But hey what do I know I'm just a pasty white man who wished he had his tan back.

For me there is a downside to having black friends, because when they stand around me my "pastiness" is much more obvious!! YIKES!!!

AND my wallet ends up missing!!!!

JUST KIDDING!!! LOL

Seriously, as a lawyer myself I'm disgusted by lawyers like Mr. Pearson. Race is not the cause of his problems, but I suspect drugs and/or mental illness and such infirmities affect all races.

In my humble opinion, had Mr. Pearson been white (assumeing a white would have filed such a suit...LOL JUST KIDDING AGAIN), the verdict would have been the same for the lawsuit was filed in bad faith and frivolous.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 6:37 PM

Pearson is a man who achieved a level of education that is respectable. Pearson graduated from college and got his J.D. degree from a law school. He even passed the Washington, D.C. bar. He achieved something many people do not achieve.

But something has happened. When you read some of the online pleadings concerning his divorce and this case, you've got to come to the conclusion that something has happened to Mr. Pearson. Something is not right. It has nothing to do with race. It is something much more insidious.

With this lawsuit, Mr. Pearson's career as an administrative judge and perhaps an attorney are at risk. It is reported that the Chief Administrative Judge who originally recommended Pearson for an additional 10 year term as an administrative judge has withdrawn said recommendation. Pearson is at risk of losing his $100,000.00/yr job as an administrative judge. With Pearson's litigious divorce and this case, one has to wonder what is going on in this man's life.

It is reported elsewhere (albeit unproven), that Pearson was caught on videotape smoking crack in a courthouse restroom. Furthermore, that the videotape was placed in an evidence locker in which Pearson, as judge, had access to and the videotape came up missing.

If the allegations are true and I don't know that they are, then such revelations, if true, would speak volumes.

As a lawyer myself, I have seen lawyers self-destruct. Usually the self-destruction comes from the use of drugs.

If such is the case here, that would explain a lot.

This case by Mr. Pearson is an abuse of the legal system. Mr. Pearson has acted in bad faith. This case is a travesty and has done immense harm not only to the poor Chung family, but to Pearson himself.

Before all of this is over, I expect the life of Mr. Pearson will only get worse, before it gets better...if it gets better.

I just hope Mr. Pearson's life and its downward spiral does not take on more victims like it has the Chungs. Mr. Pearson's life has caused enough casualities all ready. The D.C. Bar should really investigate this man for drug abuse for the D.C. Bar owes a duty to the public to do so...to do anything less would be malfeasance and grossly negligent.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 6:50 PM

By the way, not only the Chung's, but Mr. Pearson needs our prayers.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 6:54 PM

I hope Judge Roy Pearson not only loses his job, he also loses his career as well. That mentally ill crack addict has no business practicing law.

andycyber@aim.com

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 6:56 PM

I pray that the Chungs will be fully reimbursed for their legal fees and I will also pray that Judge Roy Pearson gets hit by a car.

Posted by: Phoenix Guy | June 25, 2007 6:58 PM

Dear Phoenix Guy:

Since you admit to being a praying man, just a few points to ponder:

MT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

MT 9:13 But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

JAS 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Save your anger for much more important issues, i.e. Islamic Fascism a political and religious ideology that deserves righteous anger & action. In comparison, Pearson just "ain't" worth it.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 7:13 PM

i come from a family of korean-american business owners--and no matter what happened regarding issues of customer service, the chungs did not deserve this! i'm ashamed to be an american sometimes--especially when i read what kinds of stories the international press is covering about the u.s.a--and this story comes out on top! it's a real shame that this spun out of control, and that mr. pearson did not get any psychiatric or emotional intervention from his community. he just sounds like a lost man taking his ire out on some of his neighbors. i will pray for this guy and his soul.

Posted by: californiagal | June 25, 2007 7:26 PM

TO: californiagal

I agree with your frustration.

But know this. The D.C. Bar is investigating Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson may just have to get psychiatric care, "emotional intervention", and/or drug evaluation following any recommendations.

So in otherwords, the story is not over.

Furthermore, there will be a hearing on attorney fees as well with the Chungs, in my opinion, getting a judgment for attorney fees. However, I would not be surprised if Pearson turns out to be "judgment proof", i.e. broke. Furthermore, Pearson might file for bankruptcy and the poor Chungs get nothing but a judgment on paper for attorney fees.

A judgment for monies and/or an award for attorney fees does not mean you'll actually see that money.

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 7:45 PM

Of course some people have picked up on the racial overtones of this case. There has been tension between the black and Korean community for the last twenty years. The blacks think that the Koreans (who own many of the small grocery stores and cleaners) are robbing them blind and are prejudiced against them. The Koreans think that the blacks are all thieves thus the tension. If you are not aware of this then you either have your head in the sand or don't ever go to D.C.

Posted by: Observer | June 25, 2007 7:47 PM

Pearson is a man who achieved a level of education that is respectable. Pearson graduated from college and got his J.D. degree from a law school. He even passed the Washington, D.C. bar. He achieved something many people do not achieve.
________________________

This is not true. In law school and out in the field, so to speak, one thing I learned was that just about any fool or idiot can become a lawyer. All it takes is money for tuition and the ability to stay in student status for a few years. It certainly does not take any degree of intelligence, at least not intelligence to the point where one realizes that good lawyering requires common sense, discipline, hard work, wanting to always do what is best for the client, harboring no prejudices or bias, and lack of greed.

It's not really saying anything about a person who can go to school, pass college tests and get through the Bar exam.

I have always told people that if a person is stupid, greedy, dishonest, lacks common sense, or is incompetent BEFORE they entered law school, his or her legal education and passing the bar exam does not rid the person of those flaws. They are just transformed from flawed lay persons into flawed lawyers.

IMHO, in California about 80% to 90% of the lawyer population does "C average" work or below. They get away with it because the public and consumer does not know how poorly the lawyer represented him or her.

Pearson in a complete fraud. But he does not think he is, so we cannot expect him to act differently than he has so far.

IMHO he has harmed four "things" by his conduct: His race, lawyers, the justice system and consumer laws. All have or will suffer as a result of his actions.

What a greedy and arrogant pig. He must be getting PR tips from Marion Barry.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 7:59 PM

I'm with Observer. If you don't think race matters in DC, you are on drugs.

Posted by: POS | June 25, 2007 8:48 PM

As someone noted before, there seems to be a contradition in Pearson's testimony.
He testified that he quit the job before the judgeship. Yet he says he collected unemployment checks. If I remember, you cannot collect if you voluntarily quit.
So, he quit and collected, resulting in an unemployment benefits fraud.
Or, he got fired and collected, resulting in a perjury in his trial testimony.
Any comments?

Posted by: Upnorth | June 25, 2007 8:50 PM

Upnorth: Maybe he says he quit to save face? Lots of people do that.

But sounds like DC is the same as in California, if you quit, you cannot collect unemployment.

I bet he got fired but likes to tell people he quit.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 9:55 PM

Judge Judith Bartnoff is puting the US Judiciary at risk of being elevated above the Somali Courts in its international standing.

Though the question still remains - what judicial system allows the filing of a cause of action that even if successful must fail for in its malicious intent the family could never hope to raise that kind of cash and it would be reasonably expected that the Plaintiff knew that?

The matter should have been stricken as malicious and vexatious with cost to the Defendants.

Posted by: Mick from Malaysia | June 25, 2007 10:03 PM

eggie, what's up with the double-standard? Remove racist comments but then say I wonder if this would have been a white person...

Posted by: Two-faced | June 25, 2007 10:16 PM

To Michael:

You chose an excerpt from my post and said it was not true. Lets break that excerpt down and examine it:

In that excerpt I said:

"Pearson is a man who achieved a level of education that is respectable."

Michael? Is that the part that you claim is not true?

Do you not hold out some respect for a person who spends three years after collge in law school and gets a degree? What level of education achieved would you find "respectable"? Could it be just more of a matter of opinion rather than being an "untruth" or not being true as you claim?

Or are you saying Pearson is not a man amd therefore, my referring to him as a man was not true? :)

"Pearson graduated from college and got his J.D. degree from a law school."

Perhaps the above quote from the excerpt is what you claim is not true. Was I lying or misinformed when I said Pearson graduated from college?

Was I lying when I said Pearson had a J.D. degree from a law school?

Now I admit I did not throughly research Mr. Pearson's background nor review his resume and confirm such assertions. But I do know from reading Rule 46 of the Rules of District of Columbia Court
of Appeals that you must have graduated from a law school accredidated by the A.B.A. before taking the D.C. Bar and Pearson is a member of the D.C. Bar (for now). I see no evidence to the contrary that Mr. Pearson did not attend and graduate from college, graduate from law school and obtain his J.D. degree. Do law schools issue another type of degree?

"He even passed the Washington, D.C. bar."

Michael is the above quote from the selected excerpt the part you claim is not true?

Am I in error about such claim that he passed the D.C. bar and hence became eligible to be admitted to the D.C. Bar? They say he is a member, but perhaps I could be wrong if he passed ANOTHER state bar for the D.C. Bar does allow for reciprocity wherein Pearson could have filed a motion for admission pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of District of Columbia Court
of Appeals. If I erred by saying Pearson passed the D.C. bar exam when he was otherwise admitted by the alternative motion for having been a member of another state bar passing their exam, then I apologize. But I am confident that Pearson became a member of the D.C. Bar by exam not by motion due to reciprocity.

Finally, the last sentence, in the excerpt you chose and claimed was not true, is the following:

"He achieved something many people do not achieve."

Well I will admit that more & more people are becoming attorneys. But do you have stats that would refute that assertion perhaps illustrating that just about everyone in this country is graduating from college and getting a post graduate degree which is at least equivalent to a J.D. degree? Taking the excerpt as a whole summing it up in that last statement am I somehow being untruthful? If so, how?

If the selected excerpt is "not true" where have I gone wrong? Mislead? Mirepresented? Mistated? Just outright lied when you claimed "That is not true."?

Now all fun aside:

I agree with most of what you said in that just about any idiot FROM OUR point of view can get through college, graduate, go to law school, get their Juris Doctorate, and then pass a state bar.

I passed three taking two state bars at the same time! See there? Any idiot can do it! LOL

I said FROM OUR point of view because perhaps we don't give "ourselves" enough credit! Hey when you are SMART a lot of people can appear dumb or stupid!! :)

Perhaps they are not "dumb" or "stupid", but smart and intelligent and we are just MORE intelligent! :) Perhaps we FAIL to see our true worth. You think?

I admit I don't think much of lawyers or myself for that matter, but amazingly I find people who do. Why? I have no clue for I thought many of the people sitting with me in law school were idiots and I graduated from a top notch school!!! :)

Perhaps through hard work, understanding the issues, and having done extremely well in the courtroom (jury & non-jury) is the reason why the people and clients I worked with and for thought well of me. (Geez...what idiots! :). Perhaps being a straight shooter is why. Perhaps NOT having EVER (but one time), personally sued anyone in my 30 years of being a lawyer. I sued someone years ago for not paying their legal bill (had NOTHING to do with not getting my pants back from the dry cleaners), got a judgment, and NEVER collected on it. It just wasn't worth the time AND it was NOT for an amount in excess of 50 million dollars!!!

I'm having fun with this post, posting, and keeping up on this case, and I agree with your premise that if you go into law school with "flaws" you come out the other end with pretty much those same flaws. I prefer to use the term "character" or the lack thereof. There are both good and bad lawyers out there. Like you I have seen my share of both.

As to "common sense", I'm working on that and I have a WAY to go according to mom!

OMG I just re-read this post and it frightfully sound like one of Pearson's pleadings or courtroom statements!!!

Have a Great Day Michael and God Bless You..oh and expect service of a summons and complaint for defamation in 10 to 15 days for saying what I said as not being true...geez! :)

And mom says I don't have "common sense"! I'm going to give her a call!

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 11:20 PM

Darren, perhaps a better word would be "inaccurate" or "mistaken" instead of "not true." It does not matter anyway since such was all my opinion.

The balance of what I said implied that I was retorting to your statement that it was an achievement for Pearson to have made it through college and law school. [It was not an achievement]. My post sufficiently explains what I meant so I won't repeat things.

Suffice it to say, my opinion comes from practicing in federal court since 1984. In my cases opposing counsel have been from the largest U. S. law firms to the other end of the spectrum, sole practitioners.

From my experience, few lawyers exhibit those qualities I mention. But that is irrelevant to the extent that I was mainly addressing your statements that:

"Pearson is a man who achieved a level of education that is respectable." [He did not. Besides, I think he went to second or third tiered schools].

"He even passed the Washington, D.C. bar." [That's not a big deal. California has one of the most difficult bar exams, certainly harder than D.C.'s Seeing the kind of people who pass the California Bar confirms passing any bar exam is insignificant. All it confirms is that someone knows how to take a test. Solving real life problems is all together a different matter].

"He achieved something many people do not achieve." [Again, inaccurate, or in my opinion, not true. There are so many lawyers that 1) many people are now choosing not to go to law school; 2) law schools are flunking students so to thin out the population; 3) if you count how many lawyers there are in California, it's reasonable to assume it's not much of an achievement to get through school and pass the Bar; and 4) many people become lawyers because they are incapable of doing anything else. After college they say "might as well go to law school."

Fact is, historically it has never been difficult to get into law school and pass the Bar. Did you know that in the early 1900s law school used to be only one year. Later, the accreditation committees wanted to make the profession more prestigious, on the level of med schools, etc. So they decided to make the curriculum longer, first to two years, then to three years.

The biggest problem they had was figuring out what to teach students for those three years. Confirmation as to what a waste law school is: making the students take electives that have nothing to do with what he or she will be practicing.

Bottom line: it ain't no big deal that Pearson made it through school and passed the bar. Millions have done it before and after him.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2007 11:53 PM

I just re-read my post above and I noticed misspellings...I mean typos. I noticed my using the singular when I meant to use the plural of a word, and some other mistakes that would not take place had I used Word or wore my glasses!

I even added up my years of being a lawyer incorrectly!!! 20 years...not 30 years unless this is 2017. Just what year is this? Hey I just noticed on my keyboard that the 2 is next to the 3, so it wasn't my addition that failed me but just a typo!

Man sometimes I just feel so stoopid! :)

Posted by: Darren | June 25, 2007 11:54 PM

Dear Michael:

You stated: "Darren, perhaps a better word would be "inaccurate" or "mistaken" instead of "not true.""

There's a big difference there Michael at least in the nuance! So Touche! :)

Then you said:

"The balance of what I said implied that I was retorting to your statement that it was an achievement for Pearson to have made it through college and law school. [It was not an achievement]. My post sufficiently explains what I meant so I won't repeat things."

Gee Michael for a person who says they "won't repeat things", you sure have a way of NOT repeating them in your following EIGHT paragraphs about why such in not an achievement! ;)

But I admit I enjoyed reading it. But thank God you weren't moved to "elaborate" or "expound":!!! :)

I'm just having FUN and enjoyed what you wrote!

I don't really know anything about the D.C. Bar Exam. Never practiced there. My exam experience is West Virginia, Georgia, and Florida. Like California, Florida has more lawyers than we do palmetto bugs. Some are just as ugly too!

Again I enjoyed your opinion and agreed with more of it, than what I might let on. Personally speaking, I learned more about law after law school, than in law school.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you that there are a lot of attorneys that don't have any common sense. Common sense and character are subjects that can't be taught in any classroom. You either have it or you don't.

I was aware that law school used to be just one year and I think it should be one year again. Then afterwards, you work in an apprenticeship with an attorney, i.e. a mentor, for a couple of years.

I never did much in Federal Court. Did some bankruptcy and handled one case in Federal U.S. Disctrict Court (criminal division) dealing in drug trafficking as a court appointed defense attorney. Otherwise, most of my career has been working either as an Assistant State Attorney in state court, a criminal defense attorney in state court, defense attorney representing people, caretakers, and/or parents, in dependency (abuse/neglect) cases concerning children, or the otherside of the coin representing the State of Florida against said parties. I've done some family law, but vowed to stay away from that practice of law. Some civil, but no personal injury or probate.

I think I have enjoyed the most being an Assistant State Attorney and doing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is easy with the right software.

Well good night...time to go to bed.

Posted by: Darren | June 26, 2007 12:51 AM

Well Darren, I guess my post confirms I am a lawyer because as you know, we can just go on and on and on. :)

But I beg to differ. I did not repeat myself. I talked about matters other than Pearson.

So there.

And I am on the West Coast, so I won't be saying Good Night yet. Just remember, while you sleep, I am out here, up to something. :)

And I know you will be getting up tomorrow morning and first thing you will log on just to see what I wrote. Chuckle chuckle.

Posted by: Michael | June 26, 2007 1:51 AM

Obviously Pearson has problems with judgment, among other things, and is certainly not fit to be a judge or a lawyer. Lets just hope he is wise enough to seek medical help before he inflicts any more harm on society.

Posted by: Al | June 26, 2007 9:05 AM

Pearson says that he brought in a suit and got the wrong pants back. He complained. The cleaners told him to buzz off. He went balistic. Maybe some of you would have too.

Posted by: Gnarlene | June 26, 2007 9:29 AM

Pearson says that he brought in a suit and got the wrong pants back. He complained. The cleaners told him to buzz off. He went ballistic. Maybe some of you would have too.

Posted by: Gnarlene | June 26, 2007 9:29 AM

For those of you who keep stating that the customer service is required, even if you don't agree with the amount that was asked for: did you know the Chungs offered $12,000 for pants that were probably returned (but late). You think receiving $12,000 for late or even lost pants isn't taking care of the customer, or is this robbing a hardworking immigrant family?

Posted by: voiceofreason | June 26, 2007 10:03 AM

My understanding is that the cleaners offered nothing until well after this whole crazy litigation started.

I believe the cleaners found the pants a week after they originally went missing. Are they really Pearson's? I have no idea. Judge Bartnoff certainly seems to think they are Pearson's. And while the Chungs might not have agreed to the $1000 or so for a replacement suit, they did make three offers to settle over the last two years. So there's ballistic and then there's this.

Posted by: New York | June 26, 2007 1:16 PM

A great post on another site that sims up the next phase for Roy:

"Please take some brief action to get this bloodsucker off our payroll at over 100K per year. You know this fat, lazy cat does very little every day except for milking everything he can out of the system. Unethical and immoral people (not to mention crack smokers) have a way of staying in DC govt jobs somehow. Pearson fits this DC profile to a tee but we must let them know the taxpayers don't agree.

This is what Judge Pearson hung his case on. Does he not know that satisfaction cannot be supplied, much less guaranteed by someone else? One man may be happy with a crumb, while another is unhappy with the whole loaf.

Satisfaction cannot be given - it comes from within.

Posted by: JC in VA | June 26, 2007 1:51 PM

Well I agree that, no matter what happened, the guy took a good joke a little too far.

Posted by: gnarlene | June 26, 2007 2:12 PM

Pearson claims that he spent 1,400 hours on his case, but it was all during his personal time. This sounds implausible. Before confirming Pearson to another ten year appointment, maybe the board should confirm whether he actually spent any of those 1,400 hours on DCs government's time. If Pearson used his DC government Lexis or Westlaw account, the search logs would reveal whether he used DC government assets (i.e. Lexis and his computer) for a personal lawsuit. The logs would also note the time of day these searches took place, which would be bad news if they were at say 3pm on a Tuesday. This would just take a simple email request to the Lexis/Westlaw account manager. The Board should also interview his secretary, his clerk, or any paralegals and point blank ask them if he worked on the pants suit during business hours, or worse, asked them to help him on the case.

If they do any sort of investigation, I have a feeling they are going to find lots of evidence that he worked on this case when he was supposed to be working as a judge. DC deserves better. The last time the OPM posted an adm. law judge position, there were hundreds of well-qualified applicants. So I don't know why DC has to settle for Pearson.

Ironically, it is in the Chungs best interest that Pearson stays employed. While it has been speculated that Pearson would just declare bankruptcy to avoid paying any attorney fees, it's just not that simple. If you have a stable $100,000 per year job, regardless if he has no assets, I don't see how a bankruptcy judge or trustee is going to discharge a court ordered fee unless their are lots of serious other debts involved (i.e. child care, mortgage, back taxes, etc.).

Posted by: GS | June 26, 2007 2:18 PM

Of course also if it is obvious that he lied in an affidavit as to hours worked he would be guilty of perjury. Perhaps he could be the second person in U.S. history (after President Clinton) to be punished for lying in a civil case.

Posted by: Gnarlene | June 26, 2007 2:52 PM

It still doesn't make sense to me that the Chung family has to pay the attoney fees... it just doesn't sound right. Does that mean I'm walking down the street one day and someone decided to pick me as a victim and starts suing me, I have to pay attoney fees to defend myself??

Posted by: SF | June 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Dear SF:

You stated:

"It still doesn't make sense to me that the Chung family has to pay the attoney fees... it just doesn't sound right. Does that mean I'm walking down the street one day and someone decided to pick me as a victim and starts suing me, I have to pay attoney fees to defend myself??"

Short Answer: YEP

If you use a Winchester, Remington, Taurus, Glock, and/or cutlery to defend yourself, then (if you qualify) the State will pay your attorney fees.

Generally, in America each party is responsible for their OWN attorney fees.

However, there are a few exceptions to the general rule:

1. Parties can agree by inserting a clause in a contract that the prevailing party (winner) in litigation (law suit)can get reimbursed by the other party, i.e. awarded attorney fees.

In a Florida contract, say a lease for example which is a contract, the lease might not have the provision awarding attorney fees to the PREVAILING party (lessor or lessee), but to the lessor (landlord)only. In Florida, where a contract (lease) has such a provision, the Florida courts have ruled that such one-sided language will be construed or read as a clause which allows for an award to the PREVAILING party. Said one-sided provision becomes two-sided.

2. The second exception to the general rule that each party pays their own attorney fees is if there is a provision set out in statute providing for attorney fees. If a party has filed a lawsuit, where the relief requested (cause of action) is statutory in nature and that statute provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party, then you have a statutory right to request attorney fees. For example, lets say you don't have a written lease, but you rent out an apartment. The tenant fails to pay rent and you are forced to file a lawsuit for eviction pursuant to an eviction statute (landlord tenant law), then if in that particular statute it provides for the prevailing party to an award for attorney fees and you win then you get attorney fees.

Now those are the only two exceptions to the general rule that I'm familiar with either by contract with an agreed clause between the parties for an award for attorney fees OR by statute which proscribes that a prevailing party may get an award for attorney fees.

To sideline:

It was late and I was lonely...give me a break!!! LOL

We were "talking shop"...not shopping!!!

Posted by: Darren | June 26, 2007 5:18 PM

Gnarlene, get an education. (and a life)

Posted by: Judge Me | June 26, 2007 7:25 PM

Who's going to conduct the investigation as to wether Pearson used company time and equipment for trail prep? A panel of DC government employees? Fenty will distance himself from this ignorant jacka** as much as he possibly can. If anyone questions Pearson's clerk or staff, they will just answer that they don't remember or they just don't know. They'll say that they work on a lot of cases and they can't remember which one is which. Marion Barry is sitll around after all the violations that he incurred. DC government is a haven for crack-smoking, lazy, incompetant people who has the ability to create an illusion that they know what they are doing.

Posted by: First Barry, Now Pearson | June 26, 2007 7:36 PM

I will use one word - and it is not a word I use lightly, nor have I used it for over a decade - to describe Pearson:

retard.

In Alberta, Canada, we have a very handy Rule of Court for dealing with something like this - Rule 129...

The court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading in the action, on the ground that

(a) it discloses no cause of action or defence, as the case may be, or

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action, or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly.

Posted by: Maharajoo | June 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Posted by: Maharajoo | June 26, 2007 08:40 PM

In Alberta, Canada, we have a very handy Rule of Court for dealing with something like this - Rule 129...

The court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading in the action, on the ground that

(a) it discloses no cause of action or defence, as the case may be, or

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action, or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly.

Good point Maharajoo under British Law its called an Order 18 Rule 19 but it reads in essence the same. Malaysia follows the same.

Which goes to show that some of the former colonies are civilised and some just never quite took the first step. ;)

Posted by: Mick from Malaysia | June 26, 2007 9:03 PM

I am happy for the Chungs that the piece of rotten garbage named Pearson is getting his just due. He lost his vile, arrogant, unjust and greedy case. Now he must pay the piper. Dearly!

The world scorns and laughs at him. He already lost his dignity and what little credibility that he might have had, Apparently he's into debt. He will lose his job and if justice prevails, he will be disbarred too. He has to pay court cost and if the Chungs are lucky, he will be ordered to pay other costs.

Hey. Pearson, what's it like to be the world biggest laughing stock of all time? Shun and scorn by all? Your stupid a#s is a sitting duck. Image every time, when someone is mad at you, they start laughing and shouts "No-pants Pearson"! And what about merchants? Think about this: will they do business with you when they know who you are? And if they do, what kind of service you gonna get? You gonna sue them too?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 9:13 PM

Posted by: | June 26, 2007 09:13 PM

Good point about the merchants he's definitely gunna be in sue mode to try and raise some cash.

Maybe all traders and merchants of Northeast Washington should put up a sign that says 'Satisfaction Guaranteed so long as your not No-Pants Pearson'.

The one great pity was that it was a dry-cleaners - imagine how much more fun it would have been if it was a Well (C)Hungs Brothel ;-)

(Apologies to Mr. Soo Chung and family)

Posted by: Mick from Malaysia | June 26, 2007 9:32 PM

Marharajoo and Mick: In U.S. courts we have a similar procedure, except it's raised by a party through a "summary judgment" motion. This motion asks the judge for an order of judgment in the moving parties favor based on grounds similar to those listed in your post. Basically, in a summary judgment motion a party is saying the opposition's case or defense has no merit, so it should be kicked out of court, short of trial.

I suspect that in the Pearson case the defense moved for summary judgment, but the judge could not grant the motion. Why?

I opined in an earlier post that consumer laws are extremely vague in what constitutes a violation of such. Because the laws are vague [they cannot be specific], it almost always is going to be a question of fact as to whether or not the laws have been violated.

If there remains a material or "significant" question of fact in case, then summary judgment cannot be granted by a Judge.

I suspect that whether or not the dry cleaner defendant's conduct violated the State's consumer laws remained a question of fact that could only be decided through trial and not summary judgment.

While it is for all of us to sit in our armchairs and judge Pearson's claims as nonsense, from a purely legal standpoint, he was entitled to his trial day in court.

Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2007 4:36 PM

I am sure we don't have all of the details that led up to this story, but let me suspect and assume:

I suspect that the "Koreans" told Pearson to take a hike when he made his initial claim or pointed out their error.

This probably angered Pearson, a black man [whom has suffered abuses everywhere he goes. To be sure, blacks get treated differently, in restaurants, on public transit, and yes, at cleaners].

Add to that that Pearson was a lawyer. Lawyers don't take kindly to merchant who commit wrongs.

I suspect that after this initial go around, Pearson went back to his office, super pissed off and weighed his options.

He probably tried once again to resolve the situation and those "damn Koreans" [his thought] again told him to "fook off." I also suspect that the Koreans eventually started to ignore Pearson's calls and letters.

At this point any lawyer is going to do what Pearson did, sue the bastards.

So Pearson, being a decent lawyer, thinks of all the ways he can go after these people. Any good lawyer thinks of all causes of action or claims that can be brought and only the best ones are filed. Pearson no doubt, correctly, saw that suing for violation of the State's consumer laws was the best shot at winning.

As what happens in all situations where people get sued, the Koreans eventually realized [themselves or through their lawyers] that they should not have told Pearson to fook off and they should have taken his warnings serious. So they do what many defendants so, offer to settle.

It's at this point that Pearson let his emotions get in the way of common sense. Turning down $12,000 in a case like this was poor judgment. I suspect at that point Pearson was more interested in punishing and shaming the Koreans and their business rather than seeking justice.

The courts are not supposed to be used as a way to shame or punish people [albeit obtaining money from a defendant can be punishing].

So IMHO where Pearson went wrong was carrying this too far. He should have quit the case when the $12,000 offer was made. To be sure, $12,000 is a lot of money for a small business to pay. And assuming the insurance carrier might have paid it, that is still a lot of money to get for missing pants. That amount would have compensated Pearson for his time and he should have felt vindicated. And for sure, he taught those people a lesson, don't ignore customer complaints, especially those from lawyers.

Bottom line: Pearson had a valid complaint and his behavior was fine, but only up to the point where the $12k offer was made. At that point he should have accepted the offer and dismissed the case. I wonder if he had anyone that could have talked sense to him. Too bad if he did not, but I don't have sympathy if he simply did not listen to the advice.

Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2007 4:57 PM

So, if Mr. Pearson thinks the pants were worth $54 million, what will be the size of the lawsuit he files when Mayor Fenty declines to give him a full term appointment (10 years) as an administrative law judge -- $540 million (10 times) $5.4 billion (100 times)?

Posted by: Barry | June 27, 2007 5:05 PM

Barry.. I forgot to post that the other mistake Pearson made was putting into his complaint those flashy numbers.

In California there is a general rule prohibiting a party from inserting headline grabbing numbers into a complaint, that is, so to simply get the media's attention.

The rule is often violated, but it is there.

Pearson, as a lawyer presumably judging cases, should have known better than to put that ridiculous number into the complaint.

I don't know DC's law, but this may be another reason he gets disciplined by the Bar and/or does not get his term renewed. I doubt he will be able to show there was a legitimate reason for asking for millions in a complaint.

So add the above to the list of things Pearson did wrong and probably makes him unfit to be a judge, and IMHO, a lawyer. Recall that that DA in the Duke University case got disbarred and lost his job based on similar conduct [talking to the press, lying about this or that, violating the Bar's rules or code of conduct].

Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2007 7:37 PM

Michael wrote at 4:37 pm:

"I am sure we don't have all of the details that led up to this story, but let me suspect and assume:"

"I suspect that the "Koreans" told Pearson to take a hike when he made his initial claim or pointed out their error."

*bzzzzzt* *wrong!!!*

Uh, Michael, actually we DO know the facts. There is no need to assume anything and inject your own apparent and unfounded bias against the dry cleaner owners. Try doing some research and read the opinion and findings of fact issued by the judge, which are available to the public and have been since yesterday morning:

1) You are assuming that the Korean AMERICAN dry cleaner owners (as you so xenophobically refer to as only "Koreans" in quotation marks in what appears to be some passive-aggressive attempt to dismiss or belittle them as foreigners -- the fact is that they are Americans who have paid their taxes, started a business, and not had any adverse court rulings or sanctions made against them ever, unlike Pearson who, even before this lawsuit, in his divorce case made an ass of himself and probably stayed unemployed for 2 years just so Deadbeat Roy could avoid paying his ex-wife's attorneys' fees) made an error in that they lost the pants. That is wrong. They FOUND the pants. Specifically, a couple days after the cleaners couldn't locate Roy Pearson's pants, the cleaners DID find the stupid pants and presented them to Pearson. This was well before any filing of any lawsuit, so it's not as if a lawsuit frightened them into motion. They located the pants and presented it to their customer as a good and reasonable business practice. They found a pair that exactly matched Pearson's fat waist size and length and that even had an unusual 3-loop arrangement. Further, this pair of pants that they found had a ticket that exactly matched the receipt that Pearson presented. The fact that Pearson denied they were his pants, even in the face of the clear cut independent empirical evidence is just another indication of his unreasonableness, unwillingness to acknowledge the truth, and vindictiveness. The fact that you can't see that is a testament to your bias or willful ignorance.

2) You are also assuming the owners were rude and told Pearson to "take a hike" when confronted with this. That is wrong. There is nothing in the record to support that assertion, and given Pearson's nit-picky, idiotic style of litigation, you can be sure he would have made a big deal out of it if that were true. The record actually shows that far from telling Pearson to "take a hike", Soo Chung and her husband continued to search for the stupid pants, found the stupid pants, and presented the stupid pants to Pearson within days of the initial delay in finding them. Of course, Pearson, being a jackass, didn't care anymore, as he just wanted blood for that big 2 or 3 day delay in finding his stupid pants, and he was willing to lie to continue with his plans for a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit.

3) In addition, the record, as carefully noted in the judge's findings of fact, reflects a previous dispute in 2002 when the Chungs supposedly lost a different clothing item of Roy Pearson's. What did the Chungs do? Did they tell Pearson to "take a hike" as you would seem to assume, Michael? Did they refuse to make restitution or conduct an investigation as to whether they were in the wrong? No. They acted in a responsible, reasonable (and maybe more than reasonable) manner and gave Pearson a check for $150, which represented every penny of what Pearson demanded for his lost clothing item (I believe it was another pair of pants). And not only did the Chungs give this $150 to Pearson, they did so even without requesting a receipt or other proof of replacement value or payment from Pearson! And, that $150 was likely an excessive amount, as the clothing item that was supposedly lost was not a new, nice clothing item, but an old, used one. And even after all this trouble, the Chungs could have refused to provide any future service to Pearson. But once Pearson begged them, the Chungs relented and provided service WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINT from Pearson for the NEXT SEVERAL YEARS. So do these sound like the actions of rude jerks who would tell customers to "take a hike" instead of taking responsibility or being reasonable? Of course not. The only one who is unreasonable and refusing to take responsibility for his actions is good ol' Roy Pearson. And you somehow seem to try to justify his behavior. Come on.

4) Finally, the judge found Soo Chung to be a "very credible witness," as compared to the utter failure on the stand that Pearson was (with his ludicrous crying, his refusals to answer even the most simple questions with a yes or no, his constant discussions about irrelevant topics like his old divorce with his ex-wife, his admitted financial troubles and unemployment at the time of the pants dispute which gave Pearson a very strong motivation to try to get an easy payday out of the Chungs). Keep in mind, too, that Soo Chung's testimony was largely uncontroverted, as Roy Pearson chose not to conduct any cross-examination of her (probably because he knew everything Chung testified to was true, and probably because he knew if he tried to grill her on the stand, he'd look like even more of an absolute bully than he already was)

Given the fact that Soo Cung was more credible than Pearson in the judge's eyes, given the independent empirical evidence regarding the found pants cited above, and given the Chungs' prior history of treating Roy Pearson with not only good dry cleaning service, but incredibly generous and reasonable restitution when another dispute had occurred, the judge found it a very real possibillity (and maybe even a probability) that Pearson was mistaken about which pants he had originally provided to the cleaners.

Finally, I could sit here even longer and break down the rest of your post, but suffice it to say that your post is based on fallacies and unresearched and unsupportable assumptions that ensure your eventual conclusion that Roy Pearson's behavior up until the time he refused the Chungs' $12,000 settlement offer was "fine" has absolutely no merit. His behavior was not "fine" at any point in time from the inception of this dispute. Recall that there was uncontroverted testimony that Pearson the jerk would show up after this dispute at the Chungs' place of business, harass them, bring his camera, take photographs without the Chungs' permission (as if Pearson owned the place), and probably hurt the Chungs' business unjustifiably by doing so. If you actually bothered to keep up with the facts of the story on the Washington Post, Michael, you'd have known that Pearson papered telephone poles nearby to the dry cleaners asking witnesses to come forward with complaints about the Chungs and basically waged a one-man war against the Chungs, depleting their life savings and FORCING THE CHUNGS TO INCUR OVER $100,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES.

Recall, too, that once the litigation started, Pearson abused the rules of discovery by burying the Chungs in overly broad and burdensome document requests and interrogatories -- the prior judge on this matter had ruled in the Chungs' favor on the discovery, and that judge said in his rulings that he felt there was substantial indication that Pearson was "acting in bad faith" in the lawsuit. So in other words, everyone (except you, Michael) thought Pearson was acting in bad faith from Day 1.

And on top of that, not only did Pearson turn down the final settlement offer in March of $12,000, PEARSON ALSO TURNED DOWN EARLIER SETTLEMENT OFFERS OF $3,000 AND THEN $4,600!!! Pearson refused enormous settlement offers (in comparison to the new-sale value of the pants at about $400, the value of used pants at probably $50, and the $10.50 cost of alteration of his stupid pants) on 3 separate occasions. Pearson wanted his pound of flesh, and instead, he threw his reputation, job, future employment prospects, and life into the toilet by pursuing this ridiculous lawsuit. He did apparently accomplish his goal of ruining the Chungs financially, though. What a guy.

And after all this, in their recent press conference, the Chungs said that it was difficult, but they did forgive Roy Pearson for his vicious and mean-spirited actions. And they said they would be willing to serve him if he ever came back to their dry cleaners. Their willingness to move on and be courteous is amazing, as I doubt you or anyone you know, Michael, would ever have one-tenth as much generosity.

The one additional thing I'd like to point out is that you have called the Chungs "bastards" in your post, and you have mocked their accent by writing terms that you imagine they said like "fook off." At the same time, unbelievably, you portrayed Pearson as a "decent lawyer" and a wronged black man. All that shows is that whatever credibility you were trying to build, you just lost it with your overt bigotry and inexplicable xenophobia.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 27, 2007 10:55 PM

QED.. you need to calm down. I said that I did not know the details of the events leading up to the lawsuit. In fact I said that most of my statements were based on assumptions.

As to how I made those assumptions, I recall reading somewhere that the cleaners did in fact ignore his initial inquiries and told him that there was nothing they could or would do.

As to using the word "fook" that is a common word when one does not want to use the F word. There is nothing racist about it.

And I referred to them as the "Koreans" because you can bet that is how Pearson thought of them. I think it safe to assume that Pearson was partly driven by his racist attitude towards these people. So whenever I said "Koreans" it was in the context of Pearson speaking.

While I think that Pearson is unfit to be a judge and lawyer, viewing his conduct from the Bench, he did nothing outside of what many, many law firms do in litigation. Bury the other side with paperwork and otherwise try to wear down the litigants.

And I did read Pearson's divorce papers. I am aware that he is indeed the POS we all think he is. But that does not mean his conduct as a consumer or litigant was beyond that which others have done.

However, I hold him to a higher standard because he is a lawyer, and what I call a "pretend" judge [IMHO administrative law judges are not real judges]. It is because of the positions he holds in life that I hold him to a higher standard.

But as a consumer and litigant, his side of the story is understandable. Sure, he took it too far, but so do a lot of people. But we cannot hold them accountable to the extent of throwing them on to the street or into prison. We can only hit their wallets [awarding fees and costs]. And as to Pearson, he should be disbarred.

Quit reading so much into what I said. Fact is that in every hotly contested case there is a winner and a loser. There are those who will brand the loser as an agent of the devil and those who will brand the winner a blood sucking greedy pig.

You are letting your bias toward one side influence what you write. In other words, everything that Pearson did was evil and all of the defendants' actions were angelic.

Get a grip man. I think we agree that Pearson was and remains a POS, but for different reasons. ;-)

Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2007 11:36 PM

QED, on reflection and from 24 years experience in federal litigation, one thing I learned is that there is two sides to every story.

While you provide some interesting details, I have to wonder what set Mr. Pearson off to go after these people with such a vengeance. I don't know if it's in his character and that he uses the court's to harass people or if something happened at that cleaners to where Pearson put on his pit bull hat and went for blood.

I think some of his past is interesting, but it does not tell me why he went after these people so hard.

Do you have any information indicating Pearson was sue happy, so to speak? If not, something set him off and I am curious to know what it was.

Oh, and in regards to your pointing out that Pearson was an ahole because he was posting bulletins on phone poles looking for other people whom were unhappy with the dry cleaners, uh..... how is that any different than:

How is that any different than a defendant asking customers that enter the store if they would be willing to testify how happy they are with the service.

How is that any different than an employer defendant coercing employees to either shut up or to testify on the company's behalf?

Litigants do what they gotta do. If the party using the above tactics wins, the actions are labeled smart lawyering. If the litigant loses, then the actions are labeled wasteful or malicious.

Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2007 11:53 PM

Michael wrote:

"Oh, and in regards to your pointing out that Pearson was an ahole because he was posting bulletins on phone poles looking for other people whom were unhappy with the dry cleaners, uh..... how is that any different than:

"How is that any different than a defendant asking customers that enter the store if they would be willing to testify how happy they are with the service.

"How is that any different than an employer defendant coercing employees to either shut up or to testify on the company's behalf?"

Michael, are you serious?

Do you really not see the distinction between:

(1) expected (and admittedly greedy) behavior from plaintiffs' attorneys attempting to fulfill their legally required duties to investigate the scope of a putative class for presumably legitimate claims (or at least claims more legitimate than the horsepucky in this lawsuit)

and

(2) Roy Pearson pursuing a completely worthless and bogus claim based on lies and obfuscation for the sole purpose of harassing and financially destroying a small business owned by a couple unfamiliar with American customs and the English language, and then, after already having filed the lawsuit, posting harassing signs on telephone poles located directly adjacent to the dry cleaners, and then PHYSICALLY ENTERING THE PREMISES ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS DURING BUSINESS HOURS AND TAKING PHOTOS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNERS for the sole purpose of disturbing the normal tenor of business and bullying the owners and their customers.

Do you really not see the difference there, Michael?

You say you are a lawyer. Then, you should also know that if these photos were such a critical part of the lawsuit (which they weren't...the layout of the dry cleaners had nothing to do with any of the claims and defenses), ask for them in written discovery. Serve a subpoena requesting an inspection of the premises. There are rules, and Roy broke them. You do know what's acceptable in discovery, right?

If Roy needed to find witnesses who would support his view of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign destroying the fabric of the Washington DC community, that is something he was supposed to have done BEFORE filing suit. And if he was trying to be such a heroic crusader on behalf of the oppressed DC consumers, why just focus the papering of the telephone poles to only those situated directly adjacent to the cleaners? Why not do that elsewhere? The reason is clears: to harass, annoy, and disturb the Chungs, their business, and their finances. That is yet another abuse of the litigation process by Roy.

As to your comment about employers coercing employees to not testify or to shut up in a lawsuit, that is a completely separate scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with the present case. And frankly, it is illegal for an employer to engage in such activities and to use the threat of retaliation to silence employees. So if your point in bringing up that example was to say, "Hey, it's sleazy, but that's just the way the legal system works, and that's smart lawyering," you're wrong. Yes, it is sleazy, but that is not the way the legal system works, and that definitely isn't smart lawyering because that kind of stuff is illegal. Employers are held accountable for such actions when those actions come to light.

Posted by: Roy Pearson Is An Idiot | June 28, 2007 5:11 AM

All I can say is that you guys are adding elements and exceptions to everything I have talked about.

I can assure you from sitting on the bench, a judge would look at each of our comments and retorts and say "there are two sides to each of the arguments you are posing."

For example, I know of no rule that says a party cannot walk into a PUBLIC place of business and take pictures. In fact, in litigation that is done all the time.

Now if one wants to walk into the back of the cleaners, then yes, one would need to make a formal discovery request to inspect.

Your emotions and bias is obvious when using his walking into the public area taking pictures as an example of Pearson's illegal behavior. Fact is, it was not illegal behavior. YOU DO KNOW THE RULES OF DISCOVERY AND WHAT A PARTY CAN AND CANNOT DO, RIGHT? You sure act like you do, too bad you don't know squat.

Another example, I can assure you that Pearson placing posters around the neighborhood is simply a more rudimentary method of looking for witnesses. In fact, major law firms often hire investigators to stop people on the street, bang on doors, etc. to look for witnesses. While Pearson's posters was fairly basic, there was nothing unusual about it. Of course, if one is biased against Pearson and anything he did, then that act would be labeled as improper [or in your case, done to harass and destroy the defendants.] Be aware, however, that some lawyers would label his actions as good lawyering.

And even more interesting, some courts might say that if he did not do such things that such indicates he did not believe in his case. In other words they might say "If you believed in your case, what steps did you take to look for witnesses or other victims?"

And don't be naive about employers coercing employees. IMHO, history is replete with examples of employers engaging in illegal or otherwise questionable methods to get employees to "cooperate" with their defense. I won't go into detail, but to name a few: Texaco and Mitsubishi.

Fact is, there all kinds of laws prohibiting specified conduct. Just because the laws are on the books does not mean people and businesses are not violating them.

You need to take a Prozac or go to work for a criminal law legal clinic.

Posted by: Michael | June 28, 2007 4:47 PM

Bottom line is PEARSON is a MORON and he should be living in a rubber padded room. It's not about Blacks hating Koreans because they are Koreans. It's blacks hating on anyone who does business in Black areas. Black people will complain about a missing pickle in a burger. "The white guy has 3 pickles but you only gave me 2." I actually heard this crap coming out of some black mans mouth. I'm so sick of listening to how this country is bringing down the black man. GO GET A JOB, STOP COLLECTING WELFARE, and MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURELF!!!

Posted by: KP | June 28, 2007 5:55 PM

KP.... I agree that Pearson could be labeled a moron, but I don't think his moronic acts can be attributed to the fact he was black. Fact is, all races are guilty of complaining about having two pickles on their burger while the other customer has three.

True, blacks may think they got fewer pickles because they are black, but odds are it was not racism by the minimum wage burger maker, it was simply a mistake.

You can't blame blacks for thinking that everyone is prejudice against them since even a few incidents of discrimination will influences one's thinking processes, for life.

Most of us will never know what it is like to suffer discrimination daily simply because one is black. I mean, look at Oprah and how even this famous person was treated by Hermes' clerks who did not know who she was.

I can assure you, if famous people suffer discrimination, though not as much as the little people, imagine of much sheet that the non-famous get hurled at them.

All I'm saying is that it is acceptable to complain and criticize Pearson's actions and conduct, but not because he is black, rather because of his profession and member of society.

Posted by: Michael | June 28, 2007 7:19 PM

"Most of us will never know what it is like to suffer discrimination daily simply because one is black."

And likewise, most of us will never know what it is like to suffer discrimination daily from both blacks and whites simply because one is Korean.

I find it strange that you are bringing up that racial angle to defend Pearson, but you are not bringing it up to defend the Chungs, who are the real victims in this lawsuit.

Posted by: anti-Michael | June 29, 2007 5:14 PM

AEB, You must not pay taxes since you want moron boy to appeal his case so he can eat more of our tax dollars. Maybe you don't work or pay taxes and are living off of welfare so you really don't care. Black people dislike Koreans because we moved way ahead of you in this society and next in line for you to hate are the Africans because they are on the verge of moving ahead of right now. Bottom feeders... It must suck!!!

Posted by: KP | June 29, 2007 5:46 PM

Â¿

Posted by: Anonymous | June 30, 2007 10:55 AM

Boy there are some SFB types in here. I did not discuss the Koreans because the post I was addressing was talking about the blacks.

I guess we can use this forum to talk about all the world's problems and issues so to make sure no one is left out, but that would not make sense except to you, I guess.

Go back to school and learn how to read.

Posted by: Michael | June 30, 2007 7:52 PM

Michael,

By chance you related to Pearson, perhaps you are he? No one in their right mind would want to justify that jerk vindictiveness and obscene arrogance. And here you are trying to label the Chungs as the bad guys. In some ways you are like dirtbag Pearson; your perception of reality is twisted.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2007 3:04 PM

I'm done with this thread, some people posting now are just plain stupid inasmuch as they can't understand what has been clearly said.

The discussion has gotten boring. See you.

Posted by: Michael | July 1, 2007 9:15 PM

Michael,

I thought you had some class. Obviously, when reality caught up with you, you resorted to name calling just like any cowardly jester. Run and cry to your mommie, little Mikey. Wahahaha!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2007 9:40 PM

"I thought you had some class. Obviously, when reality caught up with you, you resorted to name calling just like any cowardly jester. Run and cry to your mommie, little Mikey. Wahahaha!"

Oh, the painful, painful irony.

Posted by: TDS | July 2, 2007 4:28 PM

HOw the hell some third world greedy immigrants move ahead of the BLack American??? You white people make me sick with your baseless whining. Everything a black male (and lesser extent a female) does he will get castrated for it for no apparent reason! Black people are scienctists, doctors, lawyers, govt. officials, and presidential canidates!! NAME ANY KKKOREANS WHO ARE THE AFORMENTIONED!! NAME ANY KOREAN-AMERICAN MAYORS, REPRESENATIVES, AND GOVERNORS! J KP YOUR HATRED FOR BLACKS IS SICKENED!! ARE YOU MAD CAUSE THE BLACK MAN GOT IN SCHOOL AND YOUR WHITE-ASS DIDNTED? WELL BOO FREAKEN HOO!!

Just because they own a little corner store doesnt mean they are surpassing us!

Posted by: Real Brotha | July 10, 2007 6:05 PM

Real Brotha.
Learn how to spell, "brutha." What's the percentage of black people in low-income neighborhoods and what's the percentage of black people in jail, and compare that with the percentage of Asians in jail or low-income neighborhoods. If you haven't noticed, 90% of politicians are worthless. It's about kissing ass to get votes then hiring a team to do your thinking for you when you get in. No race is trying to surpass any other race. Get over yourself and stop trying to blame the white man for your problems.

Posted by: DT | July 11, 2007 3:08 PM

Hey smarty this is the internet, so I could give *bleep* about my spelling errors! If you think you are so non-racist why the hell you didnt respond to kp's racist post? BECAUSE YOUR HATRED FOR THE BLACK MALE IS QUITE PREVAILENT! AND KP, YOU STILL CANT NAME ANY PROMINANT KOREAN AMERICANS OUTSIDE OF DANIEL DAE KIM!

Posted by: Real Brotha | July 11, 2007 6:06 PM

Why didn't they just have a jury trial? That probably could have been short and inexpensive.

Posted by: Kay Sieverding | July 12, 2007 12:07 PM

I don't hate any race. What I do hate, are ignorant people. Asians were recruited from China back in the 1800s with the White Man selling rags to riches stories to them, only to enslave them to build railroad tracks when they got here. Asians deal with racism everyday but you don't see them dwelling on it. I just read an interview from 1876 regarding the 1876 Congressional testimony of:CHARLES CROCKER, and JAMES H. STROBRIDGE in regards to the treatment of the Immigration of the Chinese. I suggest you google it and read about the discrimination back then in addition to the brief below. So don't think that as a black man you're the only one getting discriminated against.

Look up Wo vs Hopkins (1886) Yick Wo v. Hopkins is the first instance of the Court inferring the existence of discrimination from data about a law's application, a technique that would be used again in the 1960s to strike down statutes discriminating against African Americans. They were discriminating against all the Chinese cleaners back in the day till this guy fought against the system in 1886.

Stop blaming your problems on the color of your skin.

Posted by: DT | July 13, 2007 11:24 AM

Where the hell I said that I blame whiteman for my problems?? WHERE THE HELL I SAID I HAVE ANY TYPE OF PROBLEMS?!??! It looks like you are trying to put words in my mouth, so you can justify your attack on me! You talk about my spelling but obviously YOU HAVE A LACK OF COMPREHENSION SKILLS! And also to dont have jack to say to KP's post which is perhaps the most ignorant and racist post on this goddamn blog!

Posted by: Real Brotha | July 13, 2007 10:46 PM

And oh its "And also YOU dont have jack to say to KP's post which is perhaps the most ignorant and racist post on this goddamn blog".

Posted by: real brotha | July 13, 2007 10:50 PM

And oh its "And also YOU dont have jack to say to KP's post which is perhaps the most ignorant and racist post on this goddamn blog".

Posted by: real brotha | July 13, 2007 10:50 PM

"Third World needy immigrants?"

"You White People?"

Baseless whining? Look who's whining?

A man suing a married couple's business for $65M over a pair of pants. You're justifying that? No one in their right mind is touching it. How about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, where are they coming to rescue Roy Pearson from such a horrific act of racism from Korean business owners? I haven't heard a peep. It's because Pearson is a retard and everyone else like you that want to justify his actions.

How ignorant are you?

Too bad you're too ignorant to spell correctly, make any comprehensible statements, use incorrect grammar, and have to write in caps to show how serious you are.

I don't have anything to say about KP's blog because it's not racist. He was making some statements about stereotypes and you are part of the problem by supporting the stereotype by your words and how you present yourself on this forum.

Calling Koreans third world needy immigrants isn't the best way to make your case, you moron. Do us a favor and go back to school.

Posted by: DT | July 15, 2007 7:51 PM

I mean, really, your lack of comprehensions skills is just amazing! YOu see, unlike you I'm not here to impress a bunch of faceless nobodies about my freakin spelling! THis is a internet blog, not a midterm paper! You cant prove what type of credentials you have on the internet which you would probably try to claim next SO GIVE IT A REST!

ANd you say i'm trying to be serious with my caps locked, well with your name-calling I think you are taking this discussion more to heart, haha.

"The white guy has 3 pickles but you only gave me 2." I actually heard this crap coming out of some black mans mouth. I'm so sick of listening to how this country is bringing down the black man. GO GET A JOB, STOP COLLECTING WELFARE, and MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURELF!!!"

You call yourself "non'racist" and yet you defend this type of crap?!?! Labeling EVERY SINGLE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE for the action of one as poor, ghetto, babies is worth defending? You are just as racist as he is!

"Black people dislike Koreans because we moved way ahead of you in this society..."

Sterotyping all Blacks in AMerica because of the action of one is not considered racist?? LEARN SOME COMPREHENSION SKILLS BEFORE COMMING AT ME WITH YOUR CRAP!

Posted by: Real brotha | July 16, 2007 6:58 PM

"Third World needy immigrants?"

Try calling that to my face and see what happens.

Posted by: DT | July 17, 2007 9:31 AM

Hahaha! Internet thug huh?! From being all high and mighty to typing up threats! You cant even hold a simple internet discussion
without threatening a faceless blogger. Haha, you couldn't even retort my last comment!